Modeling and correction of bolus dispersion effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bolus dispersion in DSC-MRI can lead to errors in cerebral blood flow (CBF) estimation by up to 70% when using singular value decomposition analysis. However, it might be possible to correct for dispersion using two alternative methods: the vascular model (VM) and control point interpolation (CPI). Additionally, these approaches potentially provide a means to quantify the microvascular residue function. METHODS: VM and CPI were extended to correct for dispersion by means of a vascular transport function. Simulations were performed at multiple dispersion levels and an in vivo analysis was performed on a healthy subject and two patients with carotid atherosclerotic disease. RESULTS: Simulations showed that methods that could not address dispersion tended to underestimate CBF (ratio in CBF estimation, CBFratio = 0.57-0.77) in the presence of dispersion; whereas modified CPI showed the best performance at low-to-medium dispersion; CBFratio = 0.99 and 0.81, respectively. The in vivo data showed trends in CBF estimation and residue function that were consistent with the predictions from simulations. CONCLUSION: In patients with atherosclerotic disease the estimated residue function showed considerable differences in the ipsilateral hemisphere. These differences could partly be attributed to dispersive effects arising from the stenosis when dispersion corrected CPI was used. It is thus beneficial to correct for dispersion in perfusion analysis using this method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".